Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
More stack height = more rolled ankles?
Display Avatars Sort By:
Lachlan Fysh
(lachlanfysh) - M
More stack height = more rolled ankles? on 05/20/2013 00:34:24 MDT Print View

Hi,

I'm planning some longer hikes and have decided that my Merrell Trail Gloves don't offer enough protection and padding for multi-day, long distance walking.

I've just bought some La Sportiva Ultra Raptors, which seem in most ways like the perfect shoe for me - rugged, grippy, wide enough in the forefoot but snug in the heel with moderate 8mm drop.

I'm currently in the 'wearing on carpet at home getting comfortable with my purchase' phase and I'm worried that the extra height of padding compared to the Merrell's (while welcome for comfort) just feels like it creates more leverage for rolling an ankle.

The stack height isn't massive (22mm/29mm forefoot/heel according to Running Warehouse) - is this a legitimate concern or do I just need to adjust to the different feel?

John S.
(jshann) - F
Re: More stack height = more rolled ankles? on 05/20/2013 05:47:01 MDT Print View

Not a concern to me. You can roll an ankle wearing any footwear. It's about foot placement and not stepping into holes (little luck).

James Marco
(jamesdmarco) - MLife

Locale: Finger Lakes
Re: More stack height = more rolled ankles? on 05/20/2013 05:51:09 MDT Print View

Yes, more stack height will certainly cause more rolled ankles. But, more stack height also means a bit longer stride and a minor adjustment to gait. You need to decide which is more comfortable for you. Shoe fit is very individual specific, and much of this depends on how much weight you are carrying.

Luke Schmidt
(Cameron) - MLife

Locale: The WOODS
re re More stack height = more rolled ankles on 05/20/2013 07:49:43 MDT Print View

The vast majority of thru-hikers and other backpackers are using shoes with 8mm or more of stack height so you should be okay as long as your foot placement its good. I don't like really tall hiking boots for this reason but I think the stack height on your shoes will be manageable.

I do think Trail Gloves make an ankle role less likely because your entire foot can move when you hit an obstacle rather then all the movement being in your ankle. I'm not sure its just the stack height however. The entire shoe is more flexible.

If you want less stack height I really like the Altra Lone Peaks. I have two pairs I'm wearing on the carpet till I decide which size fits better but I think they will be a good compromise between the two.

Mike M
(mtwarden) - MLife

Locale: Montana
stack height on 05/20/2013 07:50:56 MDT Print View

I'm finding that a low stack height gives me a lot more nimbleness running on the trail, probably not as important hiking though

shoes are like everything else, full of compromises- weight, rock plates, stack height, drop, etc

however if the shoes fit well- you've crossed the biggest hurdle by far :)

Art ...
(asandh) - F
Re: More stack height = more rolled ankles? on 05/20/2013 07:52:56 MDT Print View

22 - 29 is a fairly high stack height, and yes it could be an ankle roll concern. need to be more focused when walking/running.

I have an ankle roll problem when running generally, and have found that the narrower the heal tread the greater the tendency to roll your ankle. For me the heal tread width is a greater issue than stack height, though both are a concern.

So I tend towards shoes with wider heal tread. especially if the stack height gets up there a bit.

Edited by asandh on 05/20/2013 07:56:56 MDT.

Luke Schmidt
(Cameron) - MLife

Locale: The WOODS
Heel on 05/20/2013 07:57:49 MDT Print View

"For me the heal width is a greater issue than stack height, though both are a concern."

Actually that is a very good point. Another plus for the Lone Peaks would be the fairly wide heel. I feel like a high narrow heel is the worst possible combination. I did fairly well in NB 101 (10mm stack height) and one thing I liked about them was that the heel was not super narrow.

Greg F
(GregF) - F

Locale: Canadian Rockies
Padding on 05/20/2013 10:41:22 MDT Print View

Is the Lone Peak more padded than an New Balance MT110? I am looking for something with a little more cushion that is good on scree (no eva cutouts on the sole). Otherwise I think I will be back to a 8 or 10 mm heal drop to get the extra protection.

Luke Schmidt
(Cameron) - MLife

Locale: The WOODS
Re Padding on 05/20/2013 11:08:52 MDT Print View

The stack height of the Lone Peaks is 17mm. The NB110 goes from 18mm down to 14mm. So it depends on where you want more padding. If your forefoot is getting beat up the Lone Peaks might be better.

Edit - I forgot to mention, no evo cut outs which was a deal breaker for me on the minimus. And the bottom feels pretty firm. That is actually a complaint from some barefoot types that they are to stick. I'd order a pair from Runnerswarehouse.com just to try them out. Free shipping and they are on sale.

Edited by Cameron on 05/20/2013 11:18:17 MDT.

Art ...
(asandh) - F
Re: Re Padding on 05/20/2013 11:13:47 MDT Print View

for protection purposes ...
its not just the thickness (height) of the rubber that matters.
the type of rubber and density is also important.

I think the thinner the shoe the more dense the rubber needs to be to offer good protection. of course denser rubber is also heavier.

Edited by asandh on 05/20/2013 11:16:39 MDT.